At the same time that Buffet bequeathed a large portion of his estate to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in such a way as to avoid estate taxes. Hypocrite.

TaxProf Blog: Warren Buffett: Estate Tax Hypocrite?

Buffett could give his fortune to the Gates Foundation in a manner which generates federal tax. This would leave less for the foundation but more for the federal fisc. Indeed, Bill Gates, like Warren Buffett, advocates retaining the federal estate tax. He too could leave his assets to his foundation in a fashion which would share part of those assets with Uncle Sam., It seems strange for prominent and outspoken advocates of the federal estate tax to dispose of their assets in a manner meticulously designed to avoid the federal estate tax. ...

 

Give me a break. He's pledged 99% of his fortune to charity. He donated Billions to the Gates foundation that has saved tens of thousands of lives. He works efficiently with his money within the rules.

He's a hypocrite for not out of his way to donate money to Washington?

He's flat out suggested to tax himself more.

 

I see no problem with tax credits when donating especially for a good cause.

I looked up tax brackets in the US and they seem to be in line with what we are taxed here, 10% all the way up to 35% for making more than $379k. Is there anything I'm missing here? Different rates on capital gains? Being able to write off mortgage interest although I'm sure the super rich don't have mortgages? Perhaps Dr. G could chime in.

Tax cuts for the rich and for businesses are always cited as good for the economy as it creates jobs. If I were a business owner, I would honestly take that money saved on tax cuts and run. I'm not going to hire more people unless I know they will make me more money and I will upgrade business infrastructure on a timely basis no sooner no later.

 

I
I looked up tax brackets in the US and they seem to be in line with what we are taxed here, 10% all the way up to 35% for making more than $379k. Is there anything I'm missing here? Different rates on capital gains? Being able to write off mortgage interest although I'm sure the super rich don't have mortgages? Perhaps Dr. G could chime in.
.

you should read his original opinion piece :

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

 

not sure he's a hypocrite, he's just having some tax lawyer do what he's paid to do.

his point is the wealthy should be taxed more, and he's been consistent in this message for years. if he by himself pays more it's a small remedy, but if the rest of the super wealthy do then it can actually solve some problems.

 

Ah lower capital gains tax. It's the opposite here yet it doesn't stop people from investing. Well we do have RRSPs but...

I see giving to charities as citizens doing government work, directing money to causes they see fit. The NDP government would probably like to see the government be the central traffic control for all money in and all money out to different needs of citizens, whereas the Conservative government would probably want to abolish all social funding and leave it to citizens to direct money as they see fit. I prefer a central ground -- the Liberal route.

 

Probably for the same reasons the middle class is made to give it up.

Fair is fair. You have a right wing government supported by the rich spending it's face off on expensive wars, well, the bill has to get paid, regardless of what anyone's opinions are on taxes.

This seems to be a little out of reach for some outstanding thinkers...

 

The tax laws don't favor them--they pay more in income tax than anyone else. Even those who find many loopholes can be made to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax.

 

Not according to what Buffett has stated and the reason he thinks tax cuts for the rich are wrong. Again why let a guy who knows, confuse and confound things for some guy on the internet with an opinion.

 

.

 

The "fair share" of the rich should be the same as everyone else's. Only a flat tax is fair.

 

So! One person's opinion is the definitive answer.

A guy on the internet with an opinion, is the messiah!

"He's not the messiah...he's only a naughty boy!

 

MazterCBlazter, do you own that book? What do you think of it?

I have my own business, I've only invoiced $160 so far this year lol but maybe after learning how it can benefit me, I should try to do more side work.

 

Why should I care what Warren Buffet thinks is fair either? He's just a rich guy.

Let him speak for his own finances and contribute directly to the government. Why wait for them to force you to do it?

 

.

 

I have long advocated a flat tax with a minimum exemption. If everyone paid 20% of everything over $20k, we'd have a nice system.

But that 'everything' would have to include capital gains, investment income, lottery winnings, etc. and that 'everyone' would have to include corporations. For corporations, I might consider multiplying the minimum exemption by the number of Canadian employees.

The reason this sort of simple tax system will never happen is that it would put all the tax accountants and tax lawyers out of business.

 

I have long advocated a flat tax with a minimum exemption. If everyone paid 20% of everything over $20k, we'd have a nice system.

But that 'everything' would have to include capital gains, investment income, lottery winnings, etc. and that 'everyone' would have to include corporations. For corporations, I might consider multiplying the minimum exemption by the number of Canadian employees.

The reason this sort of simple tax system will never happen is that it would put all the tax accountants and tax lawyers out of business.

So did Preston Manning.... :yikes:

 

.

 

Tax all imports with extreme prejudice.

The free trade agreements we, and other developed nations have entered into since the 1980's pretty much preclude this sort of thing; although I certainly appreciate the appeal.

One of the huge problems of a global economy is that disparities in human-rights/labour/health/environmental/intellectual-property legislation & enforcement around the world, in combination with the ability of large corporations to write-off expenses like shipping, make it very difficult for local producers of almost anything to compete with imports.

One of my, admittedly unrealistic, hopes is that as people become educated with respect to the social & environmental consequences of their purchasing decisions, more people will choose to pay higher prices for products that do less economic and social damage, out of enlightened self-interest. But the fact is that most people will whine about how society is screwed up, or how the environment is in a shambles, and that the government should 'do something about it' while they go and shop at Wal-Mart.

 

,

 

Unfortunately we and other nations are not smart enough to think for ourselves and opt out of this bad deal.

What exactly are talking about??

 

I'm just testing this idea out. It has some bugs in it, but I think I like it.

 

I think paying to be able to vote is a bad idea. On the voting topic, I also think that putting in penalties and incentives for voting are bad ideas.

Also a straight flat tax (% based) is inherently inequitable. It equitable in terms that everyone pays the same percentage, but not everyone receives an equal benefit from society.

 

I think paying to be able to vote is a bad idea. On the voting topic, I also think that putting in penalties and incentives for voting are bad ideas.

I agree that paying to vote is a bad idea. I've often suggested the idea of passing a test in order to vote (i.e. demonstrating some awareness of the issues and positions of the candidates), and I like that idea but recognize that it would be nearly impossible to implement fairly.

Also a straight flat tax (% based) is inherently inequitable. It equitable in terms that everyone pays the same percentage, but not everyone receives an equal benefit from society.

Again, I agree. The question is how 'curved' does a tax system have to be in order to be an acceptable compromise between 'fair' and 'simple'? The more complex a tax system, the more it will be gamed and manipulated by people with the expertise and resources to do so. To be truly fair, each individual would have to be taxed in proportion to how much they personally benefited from being a member of society, making the system extraordinarily complex.

Our current compromise is very complex, and still fails to be fair. So I would argue that it is a poor compromise.

While a flat tax with a minimum exemption is not ideal, it is certainly as fair (or more so) than our current system (especially if all sources of income are taxable, so the wealthy and corporations cannot escape taxation as they currently do), and it is very simple.

 

I don't think that, in a system based on income tax, it is fair for anyone to pay nothing. How is that a "fair share?"

 

our system (democracy) is not "based" on income tax. income tax is but one method of revenue that the government employs. everyone is contributing to that revenue in one way or another.

 

seemed apropos

 

Sums the libertarian position up, spot on.

 

Let the Free Market Rule

If you are not industrious or smart enough to protect your property properly, then you deserve to be victim of the free market Income Re-distribution of Wealth Plan, aka the Trailer Park Boys Method (TPBM.)

Pay tax dollars to control, arrest, convict and incarcerate the TPBM individualists involved with these activities, who are being entrepreneurial after all, just trying to prosper like anyone else.

Not to mention the higher private tax of, property insurance but this is a good tax cause it goes to the private sector or we can opt to pay higher deductibles to lower our private tax burden or not to have insurance at all and avoid this private tax altogether.

 

If you are not industrious or smart enough to protect your property properly, then you deserve to be victim of the free market Income Re-distribution of Wealth Plan, aka the Trailer Park Boys Method (TPBM.)

Pay tax dollars to control, arrest, convict and incarcerate the TPBM individualists involved with these activities, who are being entrepreneurial after all, just trying to prosper like anyone else.

I would put the Trailer Park Boys in jail in a heartbeat.

 

25 ceos who made more than their companies paid in taxes

25 CEOs Who Made More Than Their Companies Paid In Income Taxes - The Consumerist

 

yeah but are you willing to shell out the large amount of tax dollars to investigate, hunt, apprehend, and keep with living expenses for their long term (since neo cons etc love long jail sentences).

The wealthy would rather you foot most of the bill which you're ok with I gather.

 

funny enough, personal experience bears this out.

 

Perhaps to some hard right conservatives and libertarians it is.

That truly pathetic.

 

It would be interesting to see how they felt if they were the ones truly in need. They talk a good game...

 

Well we can already see that. They have spent considerable resources ensuring average citizens believe they should shoulder the tax burden and stop whining about reduced social services because they can't afford it they need to pay for the mistakes of the rich. They 'need'... the welfare of the state to cover their losses.

Oh, and that basic human compassion, is guilt, because you know anyone that needs anything, doesn't deserve it likely because they're a lazy waste of skin and likely put themselves inti their poor position.

Isn't conservatism great?